Ah, I see. That makes sense. Thank you for letting me know.

Thank you so much!

Hey, I think with this edit the old, now-nonexistent parking lot was added back, and I see the previously added new driveway/parking is now gone. Marra-Desimone Park was recently revamped quite a bit - did you truly do a survey to verify these changes, or just base it off the satellite/old knowledge? The satellite map isn't accurate here yet.

It's a fair critique, for sure - I puzzled over this when I looked at it in person, and I'm still not sure the right answer. It definitely is used as a parking lot, and the ways are narrow enough to seem aisle-like. That said, there aren't street markings to formalize it as a lot, the signs are there (both the named street sign & road end sign), and during non-business hours, it can look just like a wide strip. So it felt like the ground truth was conflicting.

I'm not sure what the best practice here is, honestly - I imagine different mappers would argue differently. What if we were to split the difference, and have one lane stay a minor road, and the other be a parking aisle?

Oh, thanks so much for picking up that error. When I put in all the city's roundabouts, I tried hard to keep the cycle routes connected, but I guess one must have slipped through the cracks. Thank you!

Oh, that's an awesome thing to do. Thanks!

I've surveyed the lane in person, but I don't recall there being a 10 mph sign there either. I'm guessing I erroneously put in a typo when I meant to change it from 25 to 20 mph? I'm on board with switching it to 20 mph.

Oh, very cool. I've not seen that tool before. I'll have to play around with it and use it myself too. Thanks!

Ah, yeah, that makes sense. I suppose informal path with bicycle=no & horse=no would also work - do you have thoughts on which might be better?

Okay, it's fixed now. Thank you so much for catching these errors. I'll try to be more careful with these roundabout additions.

Okay, fixed.

Oh geez, that was egregious. Sorry about that. I fixed it.

With all due respect, you may not be familiar with the law, but I have made it clear that I'm very familiar with both Seattle law and UW law. I have cited the law in both cases.

I'm a little perplexed that you think the law doesn't care about safety, when I cited the city & UW rules that indicates safety is the entire point (bicycling must be "reasonable and prudent", and not "unsafe/negligent").

I feel like this is starting to go in circles, and I'm not sure how to respond when my points are dismissed, even when I cite actual law. As a relatively new mapper, I'm frankly disappointed in this entire interaction, as it's the least constructive I've had from veteran mappers. I may have been a blowhard at one point, but at least I've tried to acknowledge when my position has been in the wrong. I've not seen any overtures from your end likewise.

If you'd like to change it to bicycle=dismount, have at it. There is no on-the-ground signage to request that, and as the wiki notes, dismount is de facto equivalent to bicycle=no. That would certainly satisfy the general principle of avoiding the removal of information from the map, and if that would put this issue to a rest, by all means do it.

Yep, it was intentional. I'd noticed that residential roundabouts in Seattle were irregularly mapped. Most, as you noted, use the traffic calming island, and a lesser but significant amount (like in Maple Leaf & Haller Lake neighborhoods, for instance) have been mapped as roundabouts.

I reviewed the wiki, and it was clear that drawn roundabouts were preferred. So I've started replacing roundabout intersections that currently are only marked with the island.

The traffic island wiki entry was the best reference I found, though I also found the roundabout & turning loop entries useful:
traffic_calming=island

"Traffic islands can also appear at the center of junctions or traffic lights, but then the roadway around them should also be drawn as a circular way tagged with junction=circular or junction=roundabout."

In my edits, I've removed the traffic island altogether because it has to be attached to a road, which isn't feasible (or maybe I just haven't learned how?) once the roundabout is drawn and no longer goes through the center of the island.

Okay, great. That is helpful. I concede that tags are based on what is legal.

In this particular case, we now come back to what the law says, to determine what the tag should be. Unfortunately, the law (as I cited above) is vague. It requires bicycle riding to be reasonable & prudent, or in the UW case, to not be unsafe or negligent. It is reasonable to estimate this by doing an in-person survey of the stairs in question, and include the appropriate tag based on that survey. We cannot default to "bicycle=yes" if it likelier-than-not (which seems an appropriate legal standard to use) disagrees with the law. Perhaps it's frustrating that we have to envision what a police officer, campus security officer, or judge would state, but if we're going to tag things based on what is legal, it is the best we have, barring direct security/police/legal consultation.

This may include subjectivity, but if the law is subjective, our tags will have some subjectivity baked in. We might not like it, but it is the law. This is also where my concerns about safety fall in - they are accounted for in the law, not the OSM guidelines.

Thankfully, as noted, the OSM guidelines encourage tags that make sense (making it clear how to re-use the data), and data imperfection is permitted. And I would hope editorial ethics are in here somewhere - we can't pretend that cavalier edits don't have safety implications (hence my Fairweather reference; bicycles + stairs can be deadly). I myself have ridden in unsafe & unlawful areas because of cavalier OSM edits, so I know this happens.

In regards to this edit, I did an in-person survey of these stairs on 4/11. Based on that, and my review of the law, I have determined that it is likelier-than-not that a campus security officer would feel stair-riding here to be unsafe & negligent, and not reasonable & prudent. As such, I do not feel I was wrong in removing the tag, as it was inconsistent with the law. "Bicycle=no" or "Bicycle=dismount" would be fine alternatives, though both would also have subjectivity baked in. Perhaps leaving the stairs untagged may, weirdly, be the most accurate option - allowing for those rare cases where campus security was fine with a skilled rider & spotter riding the stairs.

I was incorrect in asserting that stairs would need a runnel to be "bicycle=yes"; that would more accurately indicate "bicycle=dismount". Rather, a "bicycle=yes" tag here would require appropriate signage, a change in the law, or another in-person survey that disagrees with my assessment.

Does that seem reasonable? Or do you disagree?

I was a bit frustrated yesterday when I responded, to be sure. I apologize for expressing that frustration in the manner I did.

Can you point me toward the OSM wiki or other documentation citation showing that tags are indeed solely based in legality? I did a lot of looking and couldn't find backing for your main point - that legality trumps all.

Rather, I find documentation that OSM purposefully has very few rules on local tagging, edits should be bold based on direct location survey, tags should be relevant ("you have to use tags that make clear to others how to re-use the data"), OSM "values community cohesion over data perfection," and local laws shouldn't necessarily be mapped if not reflected on the ground.

I don't disagree that legality is very important in what we tag. However, I'm not ready to concede that other factors can't contribute. And though you've been clear in your position, you've not provided citations.

References:
osm.wiki/How_We_Map
osm.wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_your_local_legislation.2C_if_not_bound_to_objects_in_reality

We agree on the details here. We shouldn't get bogged down any further. I will attempt in my other thread to be more respectful.

Wow. "All stairs should have a bicycle=yes tag" is the hill you're going to die on? I find this incredible.

But as pedantry must be met with pedantry, let me change my argument.

According to Section 11.44.120 of the Seattle Traffic Code, "Every person operating a bicycle upon any sidewalk or public path shall operate the same in a careful and prudent manner and a rate of speed no greater than is reasonable and proper under the conditions existing at the point of operation, taking into account the amount and character of pedestrian traffic, grade and width of sidewalk or public path, and condition of surface...."

Stairways are public paths. Riding a bike down a stairway is easily argued to not be careful and prudent.

And if you argue that this is UW property, and their rules and not the city's rules apply, then please review the Bicycle Rules & Safety posted by UW Transportation Services. Under Rights & Responsibilities, it lists "Unsafe/negligent action" as an infraction you can be cited for.

I am not aware of any other city or UW code that specifically calls out bicycles on stairs, just like there aren't specific call-outs for bicycles on walls or cars or benches. They don't have to be that pedantic when they make the rules, because the general public knows not to ride bicycles on stairs. And the "reasonable & prudent" or "unsafe/negligent" rules cover people that do. Yes, there may be times where a skilled rider could be argued to ride stairs safely (with spotters or other pedestrian protections), but we do not have an OSM tag for "bicycle=spotters required".

In summary, please do not label any further stairs with a bicycle=yes tag unless there is bike-specific infrastructure on the stairs, though if it is a runnel, then "dismount" would be more appropriate. Riding bicycles on stairs, except in rare situations, is likely illegal both under UW and Seattle rules.

Yeah, that's an opinion, for sure. Even when the stadium is more in use, it is used very sporadically, whereas the light rail station is used constantly. And of course "percentage of light rail riders that use the road" has nothing to do "percentage of road users that use the light rail".

I'm fine with an access=dismount tag, sure. Though I'm certainly not going to go through and label all steps with that tag.

I am aware that access tags are based on what is legal. But if that is taken to extreme, it creates havoc. Bicycle tags are incredibly important for knowing where bikes can ride around the city, and when stairs are labeled with a bike tag simply because it is legally permitted to ride down the stairs, it royally screws up a cyclist's route-finding, and is a safety concern (I would recall you back to Brian Fairweather's death).

Besides, if we rely only on what is technically legal, shall we put a horse=yes tag onto all city stairs too?

That is a fair critique, given their main use is for servicing the stadiums/parking/light rail. I'm fine with it changed back to service road. I need to remind myself that not all service roads are tiny backways, but can look like this.

Though I would say that the light rail is absolutely a primary use of the roads now. The sports facilities are used intermittently, whereas the light rail station is in constant use.